FrediFizzx wrote:Actually this,
will have a range of -1 to +1 when the product is +1 or -1 with the high probability centered on zero instead of just being zero. Same with the ones in Gill's version of Gull's "proof". Well..., they do converge to zero at infinity.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Actually this,
will have a range of -1 to +1 when the product is +1 or -1 with the high probability centered on zero instead of just being zero. Same with the ones in Gill's version of Gull's "proof". Well..., they do converge to zero at infinity.
As you should know Fred, it is easy to have P(a, b) take all values between -1 and +1 as a and b vary throughout their ranges. Bell gave the example of how to generate the triangle wave by a suitable choice of the set Lambda of all possible lambda, probability measure rho(lambda)d lambda on the set Lambda, and functions A and B with values in {-1, +1}.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Actually this,
will have a range of -1 to +1 when the product is +1 or -1 with the high probability centered on zero instead of just being zero. Same with the ones in Gill's version of Gull's "proof". Well..., they do converge to zero at infinity.
As you should know Fred, it is easy to have P(a, b) take all values between -1 and +1 as a and b vary throughout their ranges. Bell gave the example of how to generate the triangle wave by a suitable choice of the set Lambda of all possible lambda, probability measure rho(lambda)d lambda on the set Lambda, and functions A and B with values in {-1, +1}.
Ah, he's back with more nonsense. I said, "when the product is +1 or -1...". The a and b vectors are out of the RHS of the equation so it doesn't matter what they are.
That is a legitimate substitution which produces nonsense. Without specifying actual functions for A and B, you end up with nonsense. Same with Gull's nonsense. And we already know that Bell's example is nonsense.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Actually this,
will have a range of -1 to +1 when the product is +1 or -1 with the high probability centered on zero instead of just being zero. Same with the ones in Gill's version of Gull's "proof". Well..., they do converge to zero at infinity.
As you should know Fred, it is easy to have P(a, b) take all values between -1 and +1 as a and b vary throughout their ranges. Bell gave the example of how to generate the triangle wave by a suitable choice of the set Lambda of all possible lambda, probability measure rho(lambda)d lambda on the set Lambda, and functions A and B with values in {-1, +1}.
Ah, he's back with more nonsense. I said, "when the product is +1 or -1...". The a and b vectors are out of the RHS of the equation so it doesn't matter what they are.
That is a legitimate substitution which produces nonsense. Without specifying actual functions for A and B, you end up with nonsense. Same with Gull's nonsense. And we already know that Bell's example is nonsense.
.
Sorry Fred, that was an illegitimate substitution which you just did. ...
Justo wrote:I am just curious. Bell is supposed to have shown that and do not exist such that
You say that is false. The question is how do you mathematically define the functions A and B that proves Bell is wrong?
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Sorry Fred, that was an illegitimate substitution which you just did. ...
How could it be illegitimate? Don't make nonsensical claims like that without backing it up. Are A and B equal to +1 or -1 or not? Of course they are. So their product is always going to be +1 or -1. The formulation produces nonsense just like I said. You have to figure out a way to keep the vectors a and b in the calculation while producing the +/-1's.
.
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian does not have a counterexample to Bell’s theorem … because Bell’s theorem is a simple, true, theorem of elementary pure mathematics.
gill1109 wrote:... A and B are not identically equal to -1 or identically equal to +1. ...FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Sorry Fred, that was an illegitimate substitution which you just did. ...
How could it be illegitimate? Don't make nonsensical claims like that without backing it up. Are A and B equal to +1 or -1 or not? Of course they are. So their product is always going to be +1 or -1. The formulation produces nonsense just like I said. You have to figure out a way to keep the vectors a and b in the calculation while producing the +/-1's.
.
gill1109 wrote:...FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Sorry Fred, that was an illegitimate substitution which you just did. ...
How could it be illegitimate? Don't make nonsensical claims like that without backing it up. Are A and B equal to +1 or -1 or not? Of course they are. So their product is always going to be +1 or -1. The formulation produces nonsense just like I said. You have to figure out a way to keep the vectors a and b in the calculation while producing the +/-1's.
.
If you use the CHSH inequality to prove the theorem you don’t even need any calculus. Since there are only two a’s in the game and only two b’s, everything depends on a single list of 16 probabilities adding up to +1. Because (in obvious notation) there only 16 possible values of the quadruple (A1, A2, B1, B2). As lambda varies it takes values in the set {-1, +1}^4. That’s a set of 16 elements. It’s easy to show that A1 B1 - A1 B2 - A2 B1 - A2 B2 always equals -2 or +2. Its mean value therefore lies between -2 and +2 (inclusive)...
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 99 guests